Social Entropy

Noah Smith points us to “the derpiest thing ever posted on the internet” — a reflection on the history of empires and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Strictly speaking, probably not the derpiest thing ever posted; the internet is old, and vast, and strewn with some truly derpy things. But even under a charitable reading: yeah, pretty derpy.

The Second Law — the entropy of isolated systems either remains constant or increases over time — offers an irresistible temptation to the kind of person who might want to take Grand Ideas of Science and apply them to complex social phenomena. (I’m totally that kind of person, so I know how they think.) Entropy is roughly “disorder,” and all we have to do is look out the window/internet to see disorder running rampant all around us. So people from Henry Adams and Oswald Spengler to Thomas Pynchon and Norbert Wiener have suggested (with different degrees of seriousness) that maybe the social chaos around us is merely the inevitable outcome of some grand dynamical principle.

The post in question, at a blog called finem respice that is fond of referring to itself in the third person, takes a slightly different angle than usual. The insight is not that things fall apart and the centre cannot hold, but that things are falling apart faster and faster.

Sadly, long-term, the battle against entropy appears to be a losing one. In weaker moments the always philosophical finem respice reader might be reduced to despondency when realizing that while reading this piece the heat radiated by the brain creates more entropy than the reading creates order. In effect, and with apologies to Jim Morrison, “No one gets out of here cohesively.”

To finem respice‘s way of thinking, there is good reason to believe in “social entropy” as well. Not only this, but its rate of growth seems to be increasing. Of the 50-70 empires that dominate the study of history, it is suddenly striking to realize that, generally speaking, the more modern the empire, the shorter its lifespan.

Sweeping ideas from physics offer wonderful metaphorical inspiration, and even occasional precise insight, into the kinds of messy situations one typically cares about in the humanities and social sciences. Still, a little care is called for, and what we have here is kind of an absence of much care.

The biggest problem is the one that creationists always make: neither the biosphere nor our social environment is anything like a closed system. Yes, the entropy you are generating while reading this blog post is greater than the hoped-for order created by your comprehension of a new text. But that’s true of the universe, not of your brain all by itself. The Earth radiates lots of high-entropy radiation into space, but its own entropy can easily decrease. It’s not just allowed — it happens quite readily. Order is spontaneously generated in subsystems as the larger world increases in entropy. The plain evidence of history would seem to imply that this kind of tendency is especially prominent in the social context. The Roman/Persian/Chinese empires were not actually preceded by even earlier empires that lasted ten times as long. Even aside from the limitations of borrowing ideas from physics and applying them outside their circumscribed domains, this kind of idea would seem to be flatly contradicted by the evidence.

Which is a shame, because there might very well be something interesting to say about the changing cohesiveness of nation-sized institutions over time, and there may even be ideas from physics that could help. It does seem sensible to claim that the pace of all sorts of changes has picked up over the last few hundred years, even if “entropy” isn’t at all the right concept to reach for here. It’s the self-organization part, as well as ideas from complexity and network theory, that can be really helpful. This is the kind of thing that reformed physicist Geoffrey West has been studying with (seemingly) great success.

So it’s not at all derpy to take ideas from physics (or any other field) and let them prod you into new insights in other fields. It’s just doing it in a sloppy way that grates. Derpiness, like entropy, tends to increase, but that doesn’t mean we can’t resist.

Social Entropy Read More »

17 Comments

Sixty Symbols on Quantum Mechanics

I’m currently working hard to finish a paper on the Everett (Many-Worlds) approach to quantum mechanics, collaborating with Charles (“Chip”) Sebens from the University of Michigan. It’s an area that lies at the intersection of “foundations of quantum mechanics” and “philosophy of physics,” and neither of those is really my expertise — but I’m trying to learn! More when the paper comes out, hopefully quite soon.

Meanwhile, I end up posting a lot of videos rather than really blogging, until the larger crush of work is lifted a bit. While I was in Nottingham I had the pleasure of sitting down to record for their series of Sixty Symbols videos, which is a terrific series that I’m happy to recommend. Here’s me chatting about the different approaches to quantum mechanics.

Forthcoming: me chatting about the Higgs boson, and me chatting about the arrow of time. My time in England involved a lot of chatting, it’s true.

Sixty Symbols on Quantum Mechanics Read More »

38 Comments

Standing in Faraday’s Shoes

A highlight of my recently-completed visit to England was the honor of giving a public lecture at the Royal Institution of Great Britain in London. It’s an honor to give public talks anywhere, of course — I always enjoy seeing people who are not professional scientists nevertheless decide that the best way they can spend a Tuesday evening is to hear a physicist lecture about the Higgs boson and the Large Hadron Collider. But the RI is special. Its leadership in bringing science to a wide audience dates back to 1825, when Michael Faraday inaugurated the famous Christmas Lectures. The lecture hall where I was speaking is the same one where Faraday spoke, happily with more comfortable seats and better audio-visual equipment. The connection was especially appropriate, as the hidden message (not so hidden by the end, really) of my talk was that we need to think about the world in terms of fields rather than particles, and it was Faraday who introduced the concept of an electric field.

Sadly, almost as soon as I left the RI announced that it is in serious financial difficulty. (I don’t think it was my fault — we had a nearly-full house for the lecture.) Their historic building in the tony Mayfair district of London, where the popularity of their events in the nineteenth century led Albemarle Street to become the first one-way street in the city, is now up for sale. Scientists and science lovers are in an uproar, and hope to save the RI building from being sold to an unsympathetic landlord, but it’s unclear whether that’s a feasible scenario. While it’s true that there are many more outlets for good science communication now than in Faraday’s time (I’m sure he would have been an enthusiastic blogger, but the technology wasn’t quite ready yet), it would certainly be a shame to lose or substantially alter such an historic and effective institution.

For the curious, here is the talk I actually gave, complete with location-specific jokes.

The audience Q&A, a lively discussion moderated by Alok Jha, was recorded separately.

And for the impatient, here is a much more brief (7 minutes) interview that I did just ahead of time.

Standing in Faraday’s Shoes Read More »

15 Comments

The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics

Scientists don’t always agree with each other. Yes, I know; shocking but true. In cases of collegial disagreement, it’s often fun to quantify the extent of opinion by gathering a collection of experts and taking a poll. Inevitably some killjoy will loudly grumble that “scientific questions aren’t decided by voting!”, but that misses the point. A poll of scientists isn’t meant to decide questions, it’s meant to collect data — mapping out the territory of opinion among people who have spent time and effort thinking carefully about the relevant questions.

There’s been a bit of attention given recently to one such poll, carried out by Maximilian Schlosshauer, Johannes Kofler, and Anton Zeilinger at a quantum foundations meeting (see John Preskill at Quantum Frontiers, Swans on Tea). The pollsters asked a variety of questions, many frustratingly vague, which were patiently answered by the 33 participants.

This plot gives the money shot, as they say in Hollywood:

Quantum Poll

It’s a histogram of the audience’s “favorite” interpretation of quantum mechanics. As we see, among this expert collection of physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians, there is not much of a consensus. A 42% percent plurality votes for the “Copenhagen” interpretation, while the others are scattered over a handful of alternatives.

I’ll go out on a limb to suggest that the results of this poll should be very embarrassing to physicists. Not, I hasten to add, because Copenhagen came in first, although that’s also a perspective I might want to defend (I think Copenhagen is completely ill-defined, and shouldn’t be the favorite anything of any thoughtful person). The embarrassing thing is that we don’t have agreement.

Think about it — quantum mechanics has been around since the 1920’s at least, in a fairly settled form. John von Neumann laid out the mathematical structure in 1932. Subsequently, quantum mechanics has become the most important and best-tested part of modern physics. Without it, nothing makes sense. Every student who gets a degree in physics is supposed to learn QM above all else. There are a variety of experimental probes, all of which confirm the theory to spectacular precision.

And yet — we don’t understand it. Embarrassing. To all of us, as a field (not excepting myself).

I’m sitting in a bistro at the University of Nottingham, where I gave a talk yesterday about quantum mechanics. I put it this way: here in 2013, we don’t really know whether objective “wave function collapse” is part of reality (as the poll above demonstrates). We also don’t know whether, for example, supersymmetry is part of reality. Wave function collapse has been a looming problem for much longer, and is of much wider applicability, than the existence of supersymmetry. Yet the effort that is put into investigating the two questions is extremely disproportionate.

Not that we should be spending as much money trying to pinpoint a correct understanding of quantum mechanics as we do looking for supersymmetry, of course. The appropriate tools are very different. We won’t know whether supersymmetry is real without performing very costly experiments. For quantum mechanics, by contrast, all we really have to do (most people believe) is think about it in the right way. No elaborate experiments necessarily required (although they could help nudge us in the right direction, no doubt about that). But if anything, that makes the embarrassment more acute. All we have to do is wrap our brains around the issue, and yet we’ve failed to do so.

I’m optimistic that we will, however. And I suspect it will take a lot fewer than another eighty years. The advance of experimental techniques that push the quantum/classical boundary is forcing people to take these issues more seriously. I’d like to believe that in the 21st century we’ll finally develop a convincing and believable understanding of the greatest triumph of 20th-century physics.

The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics Read More »

77 Comments

Father Flanagan’s Advice to the Religious

Greetings from Oxford, where I’m having fun talking to the assembled scientists, philosophers, and theologians, but not left with any extra moments for blogging. So I will leave you with this quote from Owen Flanagan‘s book The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World. I wanted to include it in my first talk at the conference, but ran out of time. He’s offering advice to Catholics (and has offered very similar advice to Buddhists), but the spirit is of wide applicability.

Believe none of the theology or metaphysics. But be a cultural or ethnic Catholic (the way many Jewish atheists are). Go to Mass, meditate and pray in a Catholic way if you wish, consult the right saints depending on your needs, have fun, etc.

This is a reasonable way of affirming your identity, you can find wise moral guidance in places, and you can drop all the hocus-pocus stuff. That stuff is silly, unbecoming to thoughtful souls, and can be dangerous.

(The “Father” bit is a joke, as Owen is not really a priest, but he would be an awesome one.)

Father Flanagan’s Advice to the Religious Read More »

40 Comments

Your Attention Spotlight and the Art of Picking Pockets

Apollo Robbins is a master pickpocket, but he uses his skills (as far as I know) in the service of entertainment rather than crime. Probably more lucrative, anyway.

In this video he shows Adam Green how it’s done. As Green says, it’s often a disappointment to reveal the techniques behind magic tricks, but in this case you come away more impressed by the performance than by the result. All magicians are amateur (but highly skilled) neuroscientists.

Your Attention Spotlight and the Art of Picking Pockets Read More »

11 Comments

Science Communication Workshop for Grad Students

Here’s something fun and innovative: Communicating Science 2013, a workshop this June by and for graduate students in science. It’s been put together by some of the grad students who run astrobites and chembites, online surveys of recent interesting papers in their respective fields. (So who is going to take up the challenge and start physbites?) Details below, as provided by co-organizer Susanna Kohler.

Applications are now open (http://workshop.astrobites.com/) for the Communicating Science 2013 workshop, to be held in Cambridge, MA in June 13-15th, 2013. Graduate students at US institutions in all fields of science and engineering are encouraged to apply – funding is available for travel expenses and
accommodations.

Participants will build the communication skills that technical professionals need to express complex ideas to their peers, experts in other fields, and the general public. There will be panel discussions on the following topics:

* Engaging Non-Scientific Audiences
* Science Writing for a Cause
* Communicating Science Through Fiction
* Sharing Science with Scientists
* The World of Non-Academic Publishing
* Communicating using Multimedia and the Web

In addition to these discussions, ample time is allotted for interacting with the experts and with attendees from throughout the country to develop new science outreach collaborations. Workshop participants will produce an original piece of science writing and receive feedback from workshop attendees and professional science communicators.

The workshop is organized by the graduate students authors of Astrobites (astrobites.org) and Chembites (chembites.org) and supported by Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Seems like a great event, sorry I’m not going to be there myself.

Science Communication Workshop for Grad Students Read More »

2 Comments

The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation

Longtime readers know I feel strongly that it should be more widely appreciated that the laws underlying the physics of everyday life are completely understood. (If you need more convincing: here, here, here.) For purposes of one of my talks next week in Oxford, I thought it would be useful to actually summarize those laws on a slide. Here’s the most compact way I could think to do it, while retaining some useful information. (As Feynman has pointed out, every equation in the world can be written U=0, for some definition of U — but it might not be useful.) Click to embiggen.

Everyday-Equation

This is the amplitude to undergo a transition from one configuration to another in the path-integral formalism of quantum mechanics, within the framework of quantum field theory, with field content and dynamics described by general relativity (for gravity) and the Standard Model of particle physics (for everything else). The notations in red are just meant to be suggestive, don’t take them too seriously. But we see all the parts of known microscopic physics there — all the particles and forces. (We don’t understand the full theory of quantum gravity, but we understand it perfectly well at the everyday level. An ultraviolet cutoff fixes problems with renormalization.) No experiment ever done here on Earth has contradicted this model.

Obviously, observations of the rest of the universe, in particular those that imply the existence of dark matter, can’t be accounted for in this model. Equally obviously, there’s plenty we don’t know about physics beyond the everyday, e.g. at the origin of the universe. Most blindingly obvious of all, the fact that we know the underlying microphysics doesn’t say anything at all about our knowledge of all the complex collective phenomena of macroscopic reality, so please don’t be the tiresome person who complains that I’m suggesting otherwise.

As physics advances forward, we will add to our understanding. This simple equation, however, will continue to be accurate in the everyday realm. It’s not like the Steady State cosmology or the plum-pudding model of the atom or the Ptolemaic solar system, which were simply incorrect and have been replaced. This theory is correct in its domain of applicability. It’s one of the proudest intellectual accomplishments we human beings can boast of.

Many people resist the implication that this theory is good enough to account for the physics underlying phenomena such as life, or consciousness. They could, in principle, be right, of course; but the only way that could happen is if our understanding of quantum field theory is completely wrong. When deciding between “life and the brain are complicated and I don’t understand them yet, but if we work harder I think we can do it” and “I understand consciousness well enough to conclude that it can’t possibly be explained within known physics,” it’s an easy choice for me.

Let me know if I’ve made any typos here, or have gone too far in trying to make things compact. For instance, can I get away without putting a “trace” around the gauge field kinetic term? I don’t want a notational shortcut to undermine my argument and leave the audience believing in God.

The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation Read More »

120 Comments

Hello England!

Just a word to folks in the UK, I’ll be breezing through next week and the week after and giving a handful of talks. First up is a visit to Oxford, where I’m participating in a miniseries called “Is God Explanatory?” (Not really, I will point out.) The workshop proper includes me, philosophers Lara Buchak and John Hawthorne, and astronomer/theologian William Stoeger. The conference dinner on the 10th will feature brief talks by me and philosopher/theologian Keith Ward. I think it will all be interesting and useful discussion, largely free of sputtering and invective. While I’m there I hope to sneak in some chats about quantum mechanics and cosmology with the local physicists and philosophers. (Very sad I’ll be missing A Theory of Justice: The Musical.)

After that it’s off to London, where I will briefly pretend to be Michael Faraday and give a lecture at the Royal Institution. I’ll be talking about the Higgs boson. It’s a pretty new particle, you probably haven’t heard of it. </hipster>

Then it’s off to the wilds of Nottingham, where I’m giving both a colloquium on the 16th on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and a public lecture on the 17th. The latter is, you know, open to the public, so please stop by. (The colloquium is presumably also open, but it’s for folks who are already familiar with the basics of QM.)

Unless you already went to the RI lecture, in which case don’t bother, since they’re on the same topics. Seriously, even the jokes will be the same. The trick is to make it sound like I just thought them up.

Hello England! Read More »

20 Comments

Another Year Blogged

Happy New Year! As is quasi-traditional, we will ring in the new arbitrary chronological signifier by recapping some of the greatest blogging hits of the last year. For last year’s list I actually did a bit of work, organizing things into sub-lists and using multiple criteria. What was I thinking? Without nearly so much effort, here are my personal faves from this year’s blogging.

I don’t know, there seems to be a lot of science in there. I’ll never hit it big as a multi-tool cultural commentator if I keep talking about quantum mechanics and cosmology and entropy.

Another Year Blogged Read More »

21 Comments
Scroll to Top